Vermeulen, Hein
Case C-28/17 NN A/S v. Skatteministeriet a CJEU judgment that raises 'fresh questions' / Hein Vermeulen & Vassilis Dafnomilis .-- , 2019
Resumen.
On 4 July 2018, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in case C-28/17 NN A/S v. Skatteministeriet on the compatibility of paragraph 31(2)(2) of the Danish Corporate Income Tax Code with the freedom of establishment (Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). Under this rule, a loss incurred by a Danish permanent establishment in Denmark could be deducted in Denmark only if such a loss could not be used for purposes of foreign taxation. In this article, the authors provide a summary of the judgment in NN and focus on some selected aspects of the judgment, i.e. (1) the difference of the NN case with the Philips Electronics case (C-18/11), (2) the 'removable' difference in treatment, (3) the conditional objective comparability assessment, (4) the risk of the double use of losses as an overriding reason in the public interest and (5) the reference of the ECJ to losses that are practically impossible to be deducted abroad.
ESTABLECIMIENTO PERMANENTE
BLOCKCHAIN
DINAMARCA
TRIBUNAL DE JUSTICIA DE LAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEAS
UNION EUROPEA
JURISPRUDENCIA
Dafnomilis, Vasileios I.
EC Tax Review 0928-2750 [print] v. 28, n. 2, April 2019, p. 90-100
Case C-28/17 NN A/S v. Skatteministeriet a CJEU judgment that raises 'fresh questions' / Hein Vermeulen & Vassilis Dafnomilis .-- , 2019
Resumen.
On 4 July 2018, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in case C-28/17 NN A/S v. Skatteministeriet on the compatibility of paragraph 31(2)(2) of the Danish Corporate Income Tax Code with the freedom of establishment (Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). Under this rule, a loss incurred by a Danish permanent establishment in Denmark could be deducted in Denmark only if such a loss could not be used for purposes of foreign taxation. In this article, the authors provide a summary of the judgment in NN and focus on some selected aspects of the judgment, i.e. (1) the difference of the NN case with the Philips Electronics case (C-18/11), (2) the 'removable' difference in treatment, (3) the conditional objective comparability assessment, (4) the risk of the double use of losses as an overriding reason in the public interest and (5) the reference of the ECJ to losses that are practically impossible to be deducted abroad.
ESTABLECIMIENTO PERMANENTE
BLOCKCHAIN
DINAMARCA
TRIBUNAL DE JUSTICIA DE LAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEAS
UNION EUROPEA
JURISPRUDENCIA
Dafnomilis, Vasileios I.
EC Tax Review 0928-2750 [print] v. 28, n. 2, April 2019, p. 90-100